Damage Negation Doesn't Seem Very Good

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

As a GM, Damage Negation doesn't present me with any problems with slowdown for calculations because I've done all that math beforehand. The only step I need to add is to tell my player how many dice their attack does. If they can't remember from phase to phase or have a large suite of powers, I write it down on a card for them. 

 

Keep a copy of your PC's character sheets. It'll help you with encounter balance , play speed and tinkerers( I have to approve any changes to a PC Before play. Hopefully this never comes up for you.).

 

BINGO - planning in advance for the win.

 

If Damage Negation were common in a game, it seems like it would be pretty easy to build a chart - Levels of Damage Negation on one axis; total advantages of attack on the other axis, and number of "base DC's" reduced.  If you want it to be even more straightforward, build three charts, one each for attacks that do 1d6 per 5, 10 and 15 points.

 

At the extreme, add the dice at various levels of negation to the attack power on each character sheet.  This is another great case for two versions of each character sheet - one with all the construction details and the second stripped down for only data used in play.

 

Let's assume you have a KA with +1 1/2 advantages.  That's 1d6 for 37.5 points.  So I would say it is reduced as follows:

 

DN Levels/Negated dice

 

1/ 1 pip

2/ 1 pip

3/ 1 pip

4/ 1/2d6

5/ 1/2d6

6/ 1/2d6

7/ 1d6

8/ 1d6

9/ 1d6 + 1

10/ 1d6 + 1

11/ 1d6 + 1

12/ 1 1/2d6

13/ 1 1/2d6

14/ 2d6

15/ 2d6

 

15 DCs is equivalent to 75 AP, so if you exceed 15 DCs of negation (powerful game!), start at the top again adding 2d6.

 

All I did here is subtract 5 AP for each level of Negation and work that backwards to how many dice the attack would retain at that AP - the same math I would do for a Drain, although here I rounded in favour of the defender (so the character with damage negation) and not the attacker (the character with a Drain).

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Doesn't work.  On a killing attack, if I have 2 levels, what do I subtract?

 

And you seem to be saying that 1 level negates 1d6 of normal damage...that's AP and penetrating.  I don't like that.

 

Changes I'd make would be to focus on its value as a standard defense...in part because of what you're saying.  Factoring in how negation is affected by AVADs is unpleasant.  I rather like doing healers and teleporters with AVAD vs. Power Def, with and without Does BODY;  and sometimes teleporters with NND (defense is teleport, x-d movement, OR desolid) the same.  Depending on the build, there's 4 different levels, altho each character generally has only 2.  +1 and +2...that's not too bad.  +1/2 and + 1 1/2 (e.g. NND vs. Power Def) is...messy.   Especially as these are HTH attacks quite often, and I use MA DCs a LOT.  

 

I like a pretty simple approach.  1 level negates 1 DC of standard damage...normal OR killing.  Period.  It does NOT count as a resistant defense for purposes of the defenses chart.  Cost?  I'd lean to 4 points per level.  Strip STUN Only altogether.  Nonresistant might get tossed as well, but even if it's kept...drop to -1/4.  The power's primarily there to reduce BODY damage a little, while particularly helping to knock the STUN down.

 

BTW:  I think damage reduction needs reconsideration too, but that needs its own thread.  

 

 

Don't you already have to pro rate MA DCs? Seems like you should be well ahead of the curve for determining DCs at various advantage levels.  Noting the lost dice at various levels of Negation seems like it would be pretty easy - see above.  AVAD, Does BOD, +1 1/2?  That's the same math, but normal dice, so I'll use half dice as well:

 

DN Levels/Negated dice

 

1/ 1/2d6

2/ 1d6

3/ 1 d6

4/ 1 1/2d6

5/ 2d6

6/ 2d6

7/ 2 1/2d6

8/ 3d6

9/ 3 1/2d6

10/ 4d6

11/ 4d6

12/ 4 1/2d6

13/ 5d6

14/ 5 1/2d6

15/ 6d6

 

Same logic as above - for more than 15 levels/DCs, start at the top again adding 6d6.

 

8 hours ago, steriaca said:

It needs to either have a version which removes damage class from the equation OR it needs to be an optional power which needs to be placed in the Advance Player's Guide and not into the main book. Damage Classes are hard enough to deal with without trying to figure out what stuff equals what class.

 

This is the reason why newcomers hate Hero. The whole math beyond character creation thing. And Damage Negation is big pain in the but for the math impaired.

 

If YOU have a solution to make Damage Classes easier and make Damage Negation easier, then say your idea. While my method "doesn't work" (and I admit it doesn't work as the rules are on the book), it does make things easier on a math impaired GM.

 

The reason the math seems tough and burdensome for newcomers is that we refuse to provide any simple aids.  A DC is simply 5 AP counting only advantages that affect DCs.  We could add the simplifying assumption that all advantages affect DCs, but why?  All we need is a simple chart that has DCs on one axis and power advantages on the other, showing how many dice that is of an attack with a base (before any advantages) cost of 5, 10 or 15 points.  We can simplify my negation system by always rounding the same way, including for drains (so 1 point drained removes 1 DC).  We made a chart like that years ago for a new player who had a very versatile suite of attacks (an attacks only cosmic VPP with an SFX limitation).  We gave the player, not a math wizard, a chart of various advantages and how many d6 the character could have at those advantage levels, a list of base 5 (e.g. Blast, Flash), 10 (e.g. Drain, Entangle) and 15 (e.g. KA, Transform) point attacks, and common advantages.

 

We didn't get into combined attacks (and, I think, might have added a -1/4 limitation on the control cost for that)

 

So if the player wanted an Ice Entangle at half END with Line of Sight range, the VPP was 75 points , which could buy 4d6 (with 4 defenses).

 

Building these charts once means not having to spend a lot of time with each villain or each attack - all you need to do is figure out its base "1d6 cost" and its DC affecting advantages, and use that chart.  Villain with 10 attacks in his MP?  Write the attack names at the top of the relevant charts.  They should fit on an index card.

 

The problem is less "there's math" then "we have not used this much so we have not figured out how to streamline the math". 

 

Another simplifying alternative - just do charts for 5 points, 10 points, 15 points, on up to (I'll say) 90 points per 1d6. Figure out the cost of 1d6 after all DC affecting advantages, and use the appropriate chart.

 

Blast, NND (+1), Does BOD (+2)?  That's a 20 point power, so 1 level of negation costs you 1 pip, 2 or 3 cost you 1/2d6 and 4 costs you 1d6.

 

It's a KA, AVAD (+1 1/2), Does BOD (+2), double AP (+1/2)?  Okay...75 points per 1d6.  1 - 5 levels of Negation reduce it 1 pip.  6 - 10 reduce it 1/2d6  11-15 reduce it 1d6.

 

Instead of jumping back going "OH NO - MATH!!!" take a breath, do the simple arithmetic once and put it in a chart.

 

Do you recalculate the cost of each power before every game?  Do you recalculate END costs every time your character attacks?  No, you figure it out once, put it on the character sheet and apply that when you play.  If we had been using Negation for years, we'd likely already have models for what to note.  Or not - we still blanche when a Drain or Aid comes onto the table.  But I bet we would have figured out how to manage them more effectively if a quarter of characters had adjustment powers!  And if killing attacks were as uncommon as adjustment powers, we'd scramble for the book to remember how Stun Multiples work when that rare KA was used.

 

 

[steriaca]

I remember and surely miss that chart in 4ed for Advantages and Limitations. Points on one side, advantages or limitations on another, and cross together gets an accurate point total.

 

Could it be done with Damage Negation? Maybe. It could be helpful. 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Don't you already have to pro rate MA DCs? Seems like you should be well ahead of the curve for determining DCs at various advantage levels.  Noting the lost dice at various levels of Negation seems like it would be pretty easy - see above.  AVAD, Does BOD, +1 1/2?  That's the same math, but normal dice, so I'll use half dice as well:

 

 

Is my brain turned on?  That's the part you missed.  The answer is...only sometimes.

 

I do that, yes, but there are those days when my brain doesn't click as well as before.  

 

BTW, I personally always stay with DCs until the end.  STR and MA DCs are straightforward DCs.  The attack power is where the advantages lay, and where sometimes things get messy.  HA, NND, Does BODY, versus Power Def...+ 1 1/2.  If you're buying 3 dice...that's 7.5 DCs so far, and I'm the type to keep the half DC for now.  Then figure, say, +60 DCs for STR and MA DC's.  13.5 / 2.5 == 27 / 5 == 5.4...I'll tend to chop to 5.  

 

I really prefer to avoid half dice with normal damage dice.  BUT, with martial arts, the extra DCs commonly include 0, 2, or 4 from the maneuver.  Or +3;  I rather like a custom Power Strike that's +1 OCV, +0 DCV, and +3 DCs.  

 

When you're juggling 2 HAs (Does BODY or not) and perhaps 3-4 different net additional DCs, it's a little complex.  But yeah, as you note...in the end, if they are that messy (and they're sometimes worse)...that's what Notes are for.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, and as Shrike noted; Area Effects get more troublesome.  You did 12d6 to an area!  Except Captain No-Good has 4d6 energy damage reduction, and The Living Boulder has 6d6!  So... which dice get reduced on whom, and how do you apply the same roll differently to 7 different people and three categories of DN?  Its doable but preparation and such only gets you so far; its still going to be a stop and count the dice 3 different ways.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well, and as Shrike noted; Area Effects get more troublesome.  You did 12d6 to an area!  Except Captain No-Good has 4d6 energy damage reduction, and The Living Boulder has 6d6!  So... which dice get reduced on whom, and how do you apply the same roll differently to 7 different people and three categories of DN?  Its doable but preparation and such only gets you so far; its still going to be a stop and count the dice 3 different ways.

 

 Been there, done that. You roll 6 dice, then 2 more and finally the last 4 totaling as you go.  It takes a little more time but if you prepare ahead, you can use different colored dice and it gets simple. 

[Doc Democracy]

Been interesting reading this stuff as I have not actually used Damage Negation.  My instinct is that it is a decent tool for the toolbox as it is a defence that can cut across the traditional defences.

 

I think I would apply it to all attacks that do STUN and BODY within the SFX.  If I have DN against fire, then I would indeed apply it to fire-based NND and other attacks.

 

I am interested in the effect on play at the table.  My instinct is to lean into reducing the dice used which brings out the "what about advantaged attacks". 

 

I heard decent arguments to say that 6D6 with AP should not be reduced the same as an unadvantaged 6D6 attack.  No mention is made about limitations though, if that AP attack is limited, should that not balance things out?  The logic being that a limited attack is more easily negated than an advantaged one?

 

Anyway, I prefer not to worry about such detail at the table.  I might, instead prefer giving some price nuance to the DN.  So vanilla DN is 4 points per 1D6.  It reduces u advantaged attacks by 1D6 per D6 if DN.  If the attack us advantaged, then it reduces 1D6 fircevery 2D6 if DN.  Improved DN is 5 points per 1D6 and will reduce attacks with up to +1/2 advantages on a dice per dice basis.  Superior DN is 6 points per 1D6 and works purely on 1D6 per D6 of DN.

 

As I said, not used it but, if I do, that is how I plan to try it out - heavily SFX based with three versions available.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Been interesting reading this stuff as I have not actually used Damage Negation.  My instinct is that it is a decent tool for the toolbox as it is a defence that can cut across the traditional defences.

 

I think I would apply it to all attacks that do STUN and BODY within the SFX.  If I have DN against fire, then I would indeed apply it to fire-based NND and other attacks.

 

I am interested in the effect on play at the table.  My instinct is to lean into reducing the dice used which brings out the "what about advantaged attacks". 

 

I heard decent arguments to say that 6D6 with AP should not be reduced the same as an unadvantaged 6D6 attack.  No mention is made about limitations though, if that AP attack is limited, should that not balance things out?  The logic being that a limited attack is more easily negated than an advantaged one?

 

Anyway, I prefer not to worry about such detail at the table.  I might, instead prefer giving some price nuance to the DN.  So vanilla DN is 4 points per 1D6.  It reduces u advantaged attacks by 1D6 per D6 if DN.  If the attack us advantaged, then it reduces 1D6 fircevery 2D6 if DN.  Improved DN is 5 points per 1D6 and will reduce attacks with up to +1/2 advantages on a dice per dice basis.  Superior DN is 6 points per 1D6 and works purely on 1D6 per D6 of DN.

 

As I said, not used it but, if I do, that is how I plan to try it out - heavily SFX based with three versions available.

 

I like the idea of SFX based Negation.  Not sure on the pricing.  It seems like it should link back to [Phys + Energy]/[limitation for frequency of SFX].  Hero RAW tends to really lowball those limitation values, muddying the water further.  Perhaps a starting point might be a price for "universal Damage Negation" which would reduce all damage, regardless of the nature of the attack, by 1 DC.  Call that 12 points, simply on the basis that it's a level each of Physical, Energy and Mental Negation.

 

What percentage of attacks in-game are fire SFX?  Toss out the "maximum limitation is -2.  There is no single SFX that covers a third of attacks.  I don't think there are SFX that cover a third of energy attacks!

 

For 12 points, I could have 10 ED, 4 of which are Resistant.  That won't protect me from energy-based NNDs, adjustment powers, etc. but it will knock off most of an average 3 DC normal (1/2 STUN gets through) or Killing (might take BOD on a high roll; STUN on a 3x multiple) energy attack.  Is the loss of defense for all  energy attacks other than fire and heat balanced with the resistance to fire and heat attacks that work against other defenses?

 

Should I buy 4 DC of Superior DN or 6 DC of normal DN for 24 points?  The Superior DN is better if the attack has more than a +1/2 advantage.

 

Let's assume a 12 DC game

 

On a normal Blast, I knock off either 6d6 (21 STUN, 6 BOD) or 4d6 (14 STUN, 4 BOD).  I'll have, let's say, 6 defenses so I take either 15 or 21 STUN on an average hit.

 

Let's make it 10d6 AP (+1/4).  I'll either knock off 4 1/2d6 (rounding down) leaving 5 1/2d6 (average 19.5 STUN, 6 BOD so I take 13.5 and 3) or 4d6 (so I take 18 STUN and 3 BOD).

 

At a +1/2 AVAD (assume I lack the defense), I knock off 4d6 either way.

 

For a +1 NND, I knock off either 3d6 (and take an average 10.5 STUN from the remaining 3d6) or 4d6 (so I only take 7 STUN).

 

As the higher advantages will mean lower dice, so less damage flowing through overall, I think I'd be quite a bit better off with normal DN.  If half my opponents have normal attacks and half have NNDs, taking 3.5 more STUN from the NNDs seems better than taking 6 more STUN from the normal attacks.

 

Overall, I think I would avoid the nuances of "superior DN", set a price for "All attacks" (12 points), "all attacks of one type - Physical, Energy or Mental" (4 points) and a price for Common, Uncommon and Rare SFX (maybe 3, 2 and 1 point for ease of use, and see how it plays out).

[unclevlad]

10 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

 Been there, done that. You roll 6 dice, then 2 more and finally the last 4 totaling as you go.  It takes a little more time but if you prepare ahead, you can use different colored dice and it gets simple. 

 

Yeah, separate negations are nothing.  I like stun-only damage negation (in a layered defense);  you do the same thing.  Segregate out the dice in some manner.  

[steriaca]

Damage Negation is perfect to simulate a "hard armored" target, like a tank or a mecha or a spaceship. Basically no normal weapon could harm it, only major weapons can do that.

[Hugh Neilson]

As an in-play simplifier, what if Damage Negation applied by:

 

 - if the attack is equal to or less than DCs negated, it's negated (pretty simple);

 - if the attack has more DCs than the Negation, the character subtracts the average of DCs negated from the attack so:

         - Normal attack, 6 DCs negation, subtract 21 STUN and 6 BOD from the damage;

          - NND (+1) 6 DCs negation subtract 11 STUN (3.5 x 3, rounded up);

          - KA, subtract 7 BOD and [7 x attacker's stun multiple] STUN

 

That would remove the rather awkward removal of dice, and avoid the need to tell the player how many DCs were negated.

 

[unclevlad]

So, in other words, just subtract the average.  This is OK for normal damage;  it's wonky for killing damage, tho, because the BODY is rather irregular, at least using your numbers.  Sure, it's great for specifically 6 levels of negation, but what about 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?  There has to be a 2 point jump in there somewhere.  (I'd argue for 5 dice, because a 5 DC KA is 2d6-1, and thus assuming rounding down, where the 2 point jump in damage would occur.)  

 

Also, structurally, you're giving damage negation the "standard effect" approach...but giving it a bit more.  I'll grant that I'd be fine with updating standard effect to operate similarly;  as it is, standard effect reduced the power's effectiveness by 1/7th.  That's turning a 7d6 into a 6d6, at least when you're just counting pips.  I've got no issue that the odd die gets rounded down, as I'd rather take a bit away, but compelling that to be the case with ALL the dice is a poor choice.  Simpler, but poor.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

So, in other words, just subtract the average.  This is OK for normal damage;  it's wonky for killing damage, tho, because the BODY is rather irregular, at least using your numbers.  Sure, it's great for specifically 6 levels of negation, but what about 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5?  There has to be a 2 point jump in there somewhere.  (I'd argue for 5 dice, because a 5 DC KA is 2d6-1, and thus assuming rounding down, where the 2 point jump in damage would occur.)  

 

Also, structurally, you're giving damage negation the "standard effect" approach...but giving it a bit more.  I'll grant that I'd be fine with updating standard effect to operate similarly;  as it is, standard effect reduced the power's effectiveness by 1/7th.  That's turning a 7d6 into a 6d6, at least when you're just counting pips.  I've got no issue that the odd die gets rounded down, as I'd rather take a bit away, but compelling that to be the case with ALL the dice is a poor choice.  Simpler, but poor.

 

Subtract the average and create a rule for KAs.  By RAW, 2 DCs of KA is 1/2d6, so 1, 2, 3.5.  Another issue with the 15 point per 1d6/5 point per DC structure.

 

I'd be fine with a point buy of 3 points 1-2 = 0, 3-6 = 1 (2/3 average), 6 points +1, 9 points 1/2d6 (average 2), 12 points 1d6-1 (average 2.5), 15 points 1d6 (average 3.5), and apply the same to 10 point per 1d6 (2 point increments) and 5 point per 1d6 (1 point increments), but leaving 5 points 1 DC (and partial dice get the biggest number they can fully pay for, so 6 + 5 = 11, you go from +1 to 1/2d6 KA, or 1/2d6 to 1d6 Mental Attack).  But that's overly granular for some - more complexity than it merits.  Funny - we can't have this added complexity but we HAVE to have a way to buy a d6-1, which is 25% better than 1/2d6 on average.

 

So what about 1,2,3,4,5 DCs KA negation - removes 1 BOD, 2 BOD, 4 BOD (3.5 rounded up in the defender's favour), 5 BOD, 6 BOD.

 

For a 2 DC per 1d6 power, we get 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 STUN over 6 DCs.

 

This doesn't seem any worse than 12 INT being an 11- roll and 13 being a 12-.

 

And I'll say flat out that I'm changing Standard Effect here to what it SHOULD always be - less volatility is not advantageous (KAs and stun lotteries show us that already), so don't make it worse by making Standard fall below average.  Round in favour of the defender (so 1d6 attack is 3, and 1d6 defense is 4).

[unclevlad]

RAW says 2 DCs killing can be treated as 1/2 d6 OR 1d6-1.  The first is nonsensical and mathematically Just Plain Wrong, so I'll always argue for the second.  

The other argument is whether we should round up or down.  I prefer rounding down here.  And while I agree with you on the standard effect, I will NOT!!!!!!!! give the defense an advantage.  Treat them the same, IMO.  Asymmetry here is bad, IMO.

 

For a 2 DC per d6?  No, never do the conversion where you're doing it.  ALWAYS convert the negation levels, which is in DCs, to dice...which is the units of the attack.  It's the same table as we've been talking about, so it's no trouble, and it's giving them the identical breakpoints and funky incremental weirdness.  1/2 d6 averages 2 STUN on attack, so that's how much it is for negation.  It's 2/3 of a BODY, ok, call that 1 BODY as well.  I'm really not worried about that.

 

Just for grins, a bit of analysis.  This is looking at the STUN on the higher end.  Note that the low-end STUN is similar...but odds are that other defenses will make the difference moot.  The notional situation is a 12d6 attack with 4 dice of negation;  I'm not implying this is the whole of the defense.  (Which is why the low-end stun is less relevant to me.)  The 50% point is the same...the mean of each distribution is 28.  Note that from 32-35 net STUN, 12d6-14 is about 5% more likely.  

 

Also, this was Monte Carlo, but should be fairly close.  AnyDice says 36+ STUN on 12d6-14 happens 10+% of the time;  38+, it drops to 5+%.  On 8d6, tho, 36 STUN is WELL out towards the tail...it's only 2% of the time.

 

What this suggests is, if you take this approach to damage negation, you'll probably want to be careful with your CON, as those somewhat-above-average rolls that might lead to getting stunned, are in the range of uncommon, but still semi-regular.  This would worry me.  

 

 

This is basically the same chart, with an additional 16 DEF applied.  Same thing:  just knocking the average off is actually significantly increasing the frequency of significant STUN.

 

 

 

What's going on?  The standard deviation of 12d6-14 is the standard deviation of 12d6...which is just under 6.  The standard deviation of 8d6 is a bit shy of 5.  So while the means are the same...the distributions are notably different, and both highs and lows are more likely with the 12d6.  The lows are less important, tho.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

RAW says 2 DCs killing can be treated as 1/2 d6 OR 1d6-1.  The first is nonsensical and mathematically Just Plain Wrong, so I'll always argue for the second. 

 

RAW - 6e v1 p 241 - says "Each 1d6 of Killing Attack costs 15 Character Points (adding a single point of Killing Damage to a KA costs 5 points; adding a half die costs
10 points)."  Will you allow me to buy 3d6-3 for 30 points, instead of 2d6?  The former averages 7.5 BOD, and the latter only 7.  I stand by a model where buying part of another 1d6 never results in greater average damage per point spent than buying the full 1d6.  The treatment of 1d6-1 as 2 DCs is reasonable in that it is less than 3.  Cite me the reference stating that characters can purchase 1d6-1.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The other argument is whether we should round up or down.  I prefer rounding down here.  And while I agree with you on the standard effect, I will NOT!!!!!!!! give the defense an advantage.  Treat them the same, IMO.  Asymmetry here is bad, IMO.

When we halve a move, we round up.  6e v2 p107 provides an example of halving BOD and rounding up.  6e v1 p 12 says "round 0.5 up or down to the benefit of the PC", but I dislike rounding differently for PCs and NPCs (and what if all affected are PCs or none are?)  Consistency would indicate that .5 just rounds up - I don't think anyone rounds half moves down for NPCs.   Round down is more consistent with "you get no more than you paid for", though.  When we halve a limitation or advantage, we don't round that in the PCs favour either.

 

In any case, a rounding rule will only have 1 point of impact here, so which way we choose is not hugely important.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

For a 2 DC per d6?  No, never do the conversion where you're doing it.  ALWAYS convert the negation levels, which is in DCs, to dice...which is the units of the attack.  It's the same table as we've been talking about, so it's no trouble, and it's giving them the identical breakpoints and funky incremental weirdness.  1/2 d6 averages 2 STUN on attack, so that's how much it is for negation.  It's 2/3 of a BODY, ok, call that 1 BODY as well.  I'm really not worried about that.

 

Negation is purchased in DCs, and my "2 point at a time" scaling would only be relevant if we break costs into increments of 1/5 of the cost of 1d6. 

 

1 DC = 1/2d6 (where's 1d6-1 for 10 point or 5 point per d6 powers?) for a 10 points per 1d6 power, which I'd stick to as well.

 

As to the charts, no question this will shift the probabilities.  That's the cost of simplifying game play.  I don't find those shifts horrifying.

 

What scares me more about negation is the increased likelihood of taking BOD - STUN heals fast enough.

[unclevlad]

And in the DC Quick references table on V1, after the index, 2 DCs is given as 1/2d6 OR 1d6-1.  Which, I believe, is mentioned in other places, AND it's how it's done in HD.  

 

Your argument then asserting 6 DCs is 3d6-3 is absurd.  That's not how it's done, and you know it.  The issue has never been anything but how to treat the residual 1 or 2 DCs, it's not the basis for scaling up from 2 to 2*N.  This, BTW, is why the Standard Effect rule is so bad.

 

Of course negation is purchased in DCs, but overall attack power is limited in DCs...THEN converted to dice based on DC-affecting advantages.  When dealing with bonus damage separate from the attack power itself, all bonus damage is bought in DCs...then converted to dice.  That is the correct process to follow with negation.  

 

If a GM said I'd be stuck with getting the averages for the amount negated, but he rolls full dice?  Then damage negation becomes even LESS cost effective in a combined defense because the moderately high rolls become MORE likely.  I don't care about the issue of taking a little BODY;  taking ONLY negation is foolish.  The proper treatment for negation in an overall defense strategy is to counter STUN.  Which means that shift?  Is EXTREMELY alarming.  

[Hey I Can Chan]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Cite me the reference stating that characters can purchase 1d6-1.

 

"The GM can, if he wishes, allow for greater differentiation of damage than just whole and half dice.… The accompanying table shows what various attack abilities cost using this system in the 10-20 Character Point range. Using it as an example you can extrapolate costs for other amounts of dice" (Advanced Player's Guide 56). The table Damage Differentiation has a column headed Killing Attacks and prices 1d6-1 starting at 12 Character Points.

 

N.b. I've no horse in this race.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

And in the DC Quick references table on V1, after the index, 2 DCs is given as 1/2d6 OR 1d6-1.  Which, I believe, is mentioned in other places, AND it's how it's done in HD.  

 

Your argument then asserting 6 DCs is 3d6-3 is absurd.  That's not how it's done, and you know it.  The issue has never been anything but how to treat the residual 1 or 2 DCs, it's not the basis for scaling up from 2 to 2*N.  This, BTW, is why the Standard Effect rule is so bad.

 

1d6-1 has to be either 2 or 3 DCs to avoid fractions.  It does not say this can be purchased, only that this is how to classify it when we have a weapon with that damage (a variation I believe was made to provide a bit more variety to weaponry purchased with money).  Where does it say "you can buy a 1d6-1 KA for 10 points"?  Nowhere.  Thatnks to @Hey I Can Chan, we now see that the closest thing to an RAW purchase is, in fact, 12 points, not 10.  If HD does not follow the rules, that's an HD problem.

 

The fact that 3d6-3 would be more effective than 2d6 is the reason that pricing 1d6-1 at 10 points is absurd - it is, point for point, better than purchasing full d6's.  May as well argue that 1/2d6 normal should cost 2 points, or that we should also allow 1d6-1 Normal to be purchased for 3 points (which, at least, would not be as bad as allowing it at 10 points for a KA).

 

Standard effect is bad because it requires losing 1/7 of the ability, as simple as that.  if the reduced volatility were beneficial, then sure, but it's actually detrimental.

 

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Of course negation is purchased in DCs, but overall attack power is limited in DCs...THEN converted to dice based on DC-affecting advantages.  When dealing with bonus damage separate from the attack power itself, all bonus damage is bought in DCs...then converted to dice.  That is the correct process to follow with negation.  

 

If a GM said I'd be stuck with getting the averages for the amount negated, but he rolls full dice?  Then damage negation becomes even LESS cost effective in a combined defense because the moderately high rolls become MORE likely.  I don't care about the issue of taking a little BODY;  taking ONLY negation is foolish.  The proper treatment for negation in an overall defense strategy is to counter STUN.  Which means that shift?  Is EXTREMELY alarming.  

 

As to the impact on damage negation, I offered the option up for those troubled by the implications, during play, of computing and appying reduced DCs to determine what to roll.  Whether that means the sky is faling depends on whether DN is overpriced, accurately priced or underpriced for what it achieves.  If I were to conclude the end result means damage negation is, or becomes, overpriced, my solution would be to adjust the price along with adjusting its impact where it does not eliminate the entire attack.

 

It's much harder to address Damage Reduction - with a flat cost, the higher powered the game, the more cost-effective it becomes.

 

12 hours ago, Hey I Can Chan said:

 

"The GM can, if he wishes, allow for greater differentiation of damage than just whole and half dice.… The accompanying table shows what various attack abilities cost using this system in the 10-20 Character Point range. Using it as an example you can extrapolate costs for other amounts of dice" (Advanced Player's Guide 56). The table Damage Differentiation has a column headed Killing Attacks and prices 1d6-1 starting at 12 Character Points.

 

N.b. I've no horse in this race.

Thanks - an excellent reference.  And oh look - that 12 points just happens to be the very price I suggested in a more granular approach to buying killing attacks.

 

[unclevlad]

Killing attacks will ALWAYS pose a problem because you can't split 3.5 points of damage into 3 even increments, and also thinking that 1d6-1 is an increment.  It's not.  It's a translation.  Of course it doesn't scale.  Plus, using that "buy 1d6-1 to get 3d6-3" can be recast.  What's 1/2d6 + 1/2d6...?  Sounds like 1d6 in any sensible scheme...but it's not because the system uses beneficial rounding which is a distortion, so it's not "1/2d6" it's d3, and 2d3 is better than 1d6.

 

But even at that, 2d3 is worse than 1d6+1.  

 

They're NOT purchase increments.  The purchase increment should be DCs, and what you're doing at the end is converting the fractional DCs.

 

1 DC == 1 pip.

2 DCs --> 1/2 d6 == 2 pips.  

3 DCs --> 1d6 == 3.5 pips.

 

OR

1 DC == 1 pip

2 DCs --> 1d6-1 == 2.5 pips.

3 DCs --> 1d6 == 3.5 pips.

 

ONE of those steps will always have a larger increment, +1.5 instead of +1.  That can't be helped as long as killing damage is in use.  

 

Oh, BTW:  HD does let you buy 1d6-1 for 10 points.  NOT 12.  

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Killing attacks will ALWAYS pose a problem because you can't split 3.5 points of damage into 3 even increments, and also thinking that 1d6-1 is an increment.  It's not.  It's a translation.  Of course it doesn't scale.  Plus, using that "buy 1d6-1 to get 3d6-3" can be recast.  What's 1/2d6 + 1/2d6...?  Sounds like 1d6 in any sensible scheme...but it's not because the system uses beneficial rounding which is a distortion, so it's not "1/2d6" it's d3, and 2d3 is better than 1d6.

 

But even at that, 2d3 is worse than 1d6+1.  

 

They're NOT purchase increments.  The purchase increment should be DCs, and what you're doing at the end is converting the fractional DCs.

 

1 DC == 1 pip.

2 DCs --> 1/2 d6 == 2 pips.  

3 DCs --> 1d6 == 3.5 pips.

 

OR

1 DC == 1 pip

2 DCs --> 1d6-1 == 2.5 pips.

3 DCs --> 1d6 == 3.5 pips.

 

ONE of those steps will always have a larger increment, +1.5 instead of +1.  That can't be helped as long as killing damage is in use. 

 

And in my view, the largest increment should be the last increment - if you want the pest deal, point for point, buy full; d6s, not an intervening stage.  This is consistent with other "partial" purchases.  7 charges is a -1/2 limitation, just like 8 charges,not a -3/4 limitation like 6 charges.  30 charges is a+1/4 advantage like 32 charges, not +0 like 16 charges.

 

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Oh, BTW:  HD does let you buy 1d6-1 for 10 points.  NOT 12.  

 

I did not ask what Hero Designer does. I asked you for a citation in the rules which indicates that hero Designer, or anyone else pricing 1d6-1, is correct under the RAW. The only cite so far is from the APG, and says 12 points.  Hero Designer could price KA at 10 points, or 20 points, for 1d6.  That would not make it correct under RAW.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I did not ask what Hero Designer does. I asked you for a citation in the rules which indicates that hero Designer, or anyone else pricing 1d6-1, is correct under the RAW. The only cite so far is from the APG, and says 12 points.  Hero Designer could price KA at 10 points, or 20 points, for 1d6.  That would not make it correct under RAW.

 

Yes, in fact, it does.

[Simon]

Before things go too far off the rails (too late, I know)...let's inject some facts into things.

 

1. You're focusing in on issues with granularity in the system.  The more you focus on granularity, the worse it gets....kind of the nature of the beast.  So no, you don't get to say that "1D6-1 is 10 points, so 3D6-3 should be 30 points" -- as that completely ignores the granularity inherent in the system...and then arbitrarily re-applies it at the end.

 

2. RAW, which HD follows, is 5 points per DC.  1D6-1 and 1/2 D6 are both 2DC.  Why? Because granularity.  You can't have partial DC, per RAW.  Lacking partial DC, you should be limited to 1 pip (1 DC), 1/2 D6 (2 DC), and 1 D6 (3 DC) for killing damage...but there's that nagging desire for 1D6-1...so you go with rounding in the player's favor and call it 2 DC.  What does 2 DC cost?  10 points.

3. APG is not RAW.  It expands on RAW.  In this particular instance, it specifies optional rules to allow for partial DCs....making 1D6-1 2.5 DC.  If 1DC is 5 points, and 2 DC is 10 points, what does 2.5 DC cost?  12 points, when rounding in the player's favor.  Dealing with both partial DCs and partial points is not something that anyone wants to deal with, methinks.

[Hugh Neilson]

@Simon, just to clarify, are you stating that 10 points to purchase 1d6-1 is, in fact, RAW without (to my knowledge - still looking for a cite) ever being in the rules (as opposed to APG, which I acknowledge as rule variants), or that HD included the 1d6-1 option because the rules call it 2 DC, and because people wanted the ability to get that particular increment on to an HD character sheet?

 

As I read your comment, particularly "there's that nagging desire for 1D6-1...so you go with rounding in the player's favor and call it 2 DC." as opposed to the alternative of addressing that nagging desire for 1D6-1...so you note that this is more than the 1/2d6 available from 2 DC, so as there are no increments between 2 DC and 3 DC, it costs the same 15 points as 3 DC? 

 

I'm asking you specifically as you are closer to official rules interpretations than pretty much anyone else, so this might be an official interpretation made somewhere that I am missing (or that was only clarified to you in the course of working on HD, and never published anywhere).

 

More broadly, either way, one choice is rendered objectively irrational.  Either I should always choose 1d6-1 instead of 1/2d6 (if both cost 10 points) or I should always choose 1d6 instead of 1d6-1 (if both cost 15 points).  That's not dissimilar from "My luck-based character with powers having 7 charges should really take 8 charges as it's the same limitation value" - sometimes we choose a less than optimal alternative for flavour reasons.

 

I think we do have half DCs in the system, but not for killing attacks.  13 STR does 2 1/2d6 damage, and 12 STR does 2d6 damage, so the cost for an extra DC rounds up.  I'm not sure how often people use 1/2d6 in play, or how HD handles 1/2d6. though.  I see and use it more when advantages are involved (e.g 60 points is 9 1/2d6 AP, computed as 48 x 1.25), which maintains the "5 points per DC" baseline.  I would price 9 1/2d6, half END the same way, and that is allowing 1/2 DC, but that's how I would price it - I don't believe RAW addresses the question.

 

Overall, the issue is definitely how much extra work one wishes to undertake to address granularity issues.  Back in the 1e days, you either paid 15 points for a 1d6 KA or bought 2d6 for 30 points, but the "hey, let's add +1 for 5 and +1/2d6 for 10" came along pretty fast and was, I think, already well-accepted when Fantasy Hero came along and it became more broadly relevant for adding DCs with smaller increments of STR.

 

In any case, I agree we're on a pretty tangential element to one possible option for addressing a concern only some people have with the seldom-used power of Damage Negation - anyone who is integrating all of that into their game is well into house rule territory already, and will have to make their own call (including how to address 1/2d6 vs 1d6-1, if they haven't already made a decision on that aspect for other reasons).

[Simon]

I'm unsure how there's any confusion in regards to my post.

 

1D6-1 is 2DC and costs 10 points per RAW.  See 6E1 462 and (more specifically) 6E2 page 97.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Thanks for that reference.  I see the interpretation flowing from the charts, however what I don't see is any "official" statement that a character can purchase 1d6-1 for 10 points.  Or, of course, that you can't purchase it at all, or that it costs something other than 10 points.

 

As an example on the charts, 3d6 with a +1/4 advantage is 4 DCs.  It costs 15 x 1.25 = 19 points. A second, the KA with +1/4 advantage uses the 20 points per 1d6 column, but maths out to 18.75, rounded up to 19.

 

KA is the only place the oddity with two possibilities in the same DC, I believe due to the (1e? 2e?) Fantasy Hero decision to toss in the 1d6-1 variant for some variety in the weapons chart.

 

Although there are some items that cost different points and are the same number of DCs for the same dice (e.g. 1d6 at 7.5/1d6 and 10/1d6 are both 2 DCs).  I can't imagine trying to incorporate "half DCs" like half dice of normal attacks into the chart - at some point, it has to become "close enough - if you want to vary it for your games, feel free".  The RAW definitely says you can deviate from the RAW!    [Now I need to find that cite...v2, Page 298 is as good a cite as any, right under "Adapting The Rules to Your Game]

 

How to extrapolate granularity into 5-point DCs all comes down to interpretation.  Ultimately, every game where it appears (and the SW, since it could appear) needs a decision, and for 0.5 BOD on average, neither decision will likely crater any games.

 

Imagine this thread if it were a WHOLE BOD point 😱

[Simon]

You're saying that a chart in the rulebook which literally shows 2DC killing costing 10 points and being either 1/2D6 or 1D6-1 is not clear enough for you?